web analytics
≡ Menu

How MD GOP Del. Kach betrayed the defense of marriage

I just read a Los Angeles Times report about the hearing that caused a GOP member of the Maryland House of Delegates to change his mind about a legislative proposal to redefine marriage in the State. Wade Kach cast a vote that “might have proved decisive in its final passage through the State’s  General Assembly….” The report cites Kach’s explanation: “I saw with so many of the gay couples, they were so devoted to [one] another. I saw so much love,” quotes the report. “When this hearing was over I was a changed person in regard to this issue. I felt that I understood what same sex couples were looking for.”

Kach’s putative explanation illustrates the dangers of electing politicians who take the right position on an issue, but for the wrong reason. Judging by his explanation, Kach opposed homosexual marriage because he believed that same-sex couples feel no love toward one another. Confronted by evidence that challenged this belief, he had a change of heart. Or so we are supposed to believe.

There is, of course, the possibility that Kach took his original position in a calculated effort to consolidate support from the moral conservatives in his GOP constituency. Perhaps the supposed effect of the affectionate homosexual couples he saw is merely an convenient excuse for finally recanting a position that did not reflect his true convictions. After all, the witnesses he saw were chosen as part of a carefully contrived campaign to win passage of the bill in question. If he was serious about representing the voters who elected him, a thoughtful person would look for proof that these witnesses accurately reflected the norm for homosexual couples; and that they weren’t handpicked to be exceptionally appealing to legislators who would otherwise be put off by the truth.

Such a dutiful representative would also think about the full implications of the reason for his supposed change of heart. Those living in what are now call plural relationships (where one party has several “wives” or “husbands”); or incestuous relationships; or inter-species relationships; or adult-child relationships, may also display genuine feelings of love toward one another. Would Kach vote for legislation that extended the state’s definition of marriage to include such couples?

Beyond such punch line rhetoric, however, the legalization of homosexual marriage involves issues that upset the very foundations of Constitutional government in the United States, the republican form of government Kach and all officials like him are sworn to uphold. In this respect the proponents of homosexual marriage are more serious about their responsibilities than he is. They do not demand the legalization of homosexual marriage as a matter of sentiment. They demand it as a matter of constitutional equality and right. Along these lines, in an interview I wrote about on this blog in 2010, former First Lady Laura Bush (Republican past President G. W. Bush’s singular spouse) offered the more serious rationale for Kach’s betrayal of his electoral supporters on this issue:

The former first lady said on “Larry King Live” Tuesday she “totally” understands “what George thinks and what other people think about marriage being between a man and a woman. . . . But I also know that, you know when couples are committed to each other and love each other that they ought to have, I think, the same sort of rights that everyone has.” “You think [legalization of same sex marriage] is coming?” King asked.

Citing a “generational” shift in opinion on the issue, she replied, “Yeah, that will come, I think.”

I wonder if Kach has ever considered the cogent reasoning that refutes Laura Bush’s specious assertion that homosexuals should have an “equal right” to marry, reasoning I sought carefully to follow in the above referenced blog post. Even given the benefit of the doubt as to the sincerity of his convictions, Kach’s reversal on the issue points to a serious deficiency in his understand of the reasoning that supports the position he chose to abandon.  Thanks to this deficiency, the voters who supported him because he claimed to be a defender of God endowed marriage lost a critical legislative vote. More than that, his explanation for  the flip-flop lends credibility to the charge that the position he took on their behalf was the result of bigoted ignorance, ignorance that will be remedied once people like them are re-educated by exposure to public displays of homosexual affection, such as led Kach to change his vote.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find some advocates of homosexual marriage  citing his change of heart as proof that what America really needs  is a Federal program that promotes public attendance at so-called “gay pride parades”.  This would allow more people of all ages to see the public displays of affection that sapped the strength of Kach’s support for God endowed marriage. Given the aspects of “homosexual love” which he chose not to investigate however, not a few of the displays commonly seen at such parades would prove that he should have looked into things more carefully before he abandoned his duty to his constituents and the republican principles he is sworn to uphold.

Share
{ 0 comments }
{ 4 comments… add one }
  • Dawg em July 4, 2010, 6:29 pm

    The sad fact of the matter is the USSC has ignored and eviscerated the Constitution for so long they’ve reached the point where they feel they can spit in our faces with a nominee from Goldman-Sachs. I know, Obama nominated this shill, but for him to think he can get away with it is testament to their mindset. They will do WHATEVER they please. Goldman-Sachs owns BP; BP gives beau coup $ to Obama; Obama puts a bevy of Goldman traitors in his cabinet. All so quaint.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it: we have the next three elections in which to turn this around – or else. Maybe five, if you figure it’ll take two to realize the electronic voting machines are rigged for corruption.

  • Mike July 2, 2010, 2:08 pm

    I understand your point and agree that the Supreme Court is becoming just an extension of the political wars that disfigure our nation. Unfortunately this has happened for some time since Roberts and Alito were chosen as relibale votes for their President. Obama is just following this.

    Kagan used the “playbook” for confirmation that Roberts used – and seemingly as successfully.

    • Dawg em July 4, 2010, 6:15 pm

      Two wrongs don’t make a right. (I know, rather cliche’). Your post seems to indicate you’ve fallen in to the false left/right paradigm. But watch, you will see many in the GOP vote to confirm her. There is only ONE political persuasion in America today. The ruling elite. Or Globalists, if you will. They owned GW Bush, Clinto, GHW Bush, and now the foreign exchange usurper.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this:
\"Google